Record number

[ernieb59]

This has been corrected - Ken can confirm which release.
I worked with a customer with some 300 million records in a single file.
Caused all sorts of problems with @RN selections.


-----Original Message-----
From: filepro-list-bounces+ernieb59=gmail.com at lists.celestial.com
[mailto:filepro-list-bounces+ernieb59=gmail.com at lists.celestial.com] On
Behalf Of Richard Kreiss
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:13 AM
To: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
Subject: Record number

This may be a Ken question:

A while back I seem to remember there was a discussion of the record number
size.  For many years we were told that the record number was (8,.0).  This
record size would only allow 99,999,999 records.  After that, the record
number would be greater than 8 digits.  So any programming that might use
rn(8,.0) would have problems with an extremely large database.  It was
indicated that somehow filePro could handle values larger than 8 digits for
a record number.

What has bothered me is how the program can properly handle this unless @rn
is used for record number up to 8 digits and somewhere else there is another
value that contains the larger number.  
	1. Does @rn have a variable size based on the recode # - (8,.0) or
(10,.0)?
	2. If 1 above is true, would rn(len(@rn),Edit(@rn)) hold the correct
value for the record number?
	3. If not,  how would one handle this if one needed to do a record #
lookup?


Richard Kreiss
GCC Consulting

Office: 410-653-2813



_______________________________________________
Filepro-list mailing list
Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Subscription Changes
http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4117 / Virus Database: 3604/6695 - Release Date: 09/24/13